As
an atheist since my late teens, Iíve always found it a minor irritant to
be immersed in a culture where the overwhelming majority of people believe
in something I regard as a myth. I sometimes wonder why people donít
still worship Zeus or Woden, whom I consider just as plausible as the Judeo-Christian-Moslem
God. The ancient Greeks and Vikings were certainly convinced in their
time. Funny how one eraís strict dogma is another eraís mass
heresy.

But
Iíve never bothered to crusade for atheism. In part, itís because
Iím used to ignoring the prevailing religiosity around me. Having
grown up nominally Jewish in a predominantly Christian neighbourhood, I
learned at an early age to stand silently and think about other things
while my classmates mumbled the Lordís Prayer.

More
importantly, though, Iíve always believed there were more urgent and more
manageable goals to tackle.

So
while the reference to God in Canadaís constitution rankles, petitioning
Parliament to have it removed was never high on my priority list.
Unlike the Humanist Association of Canada who presented such a petition
via MP Svend Robinson back in June, I donít consider the reference "offensive"
to me. I think it says nothing whatsoever about me, but reflects
rather unflatteringly on the gullibility and irrationality of religious
people.

What
I did find offensive was the outpouring of articles from the religious
right, mostly in The National Post, suggesting that those who believe in
God have a monopoly on morality, and implying, as a logical corollary,
that those who donít are probably immoral.

One
of the earliest such offerings, from Ian Hunter, Professor Emeritus at
the University of Western Ontario Faculty of Law, actually predated the
Svend Robinson episode. Professor Hunter was concerned about
a proposal to abolish the oath to God for witnesses at trials. "Whence
cometh morality but from religion?" he asked.

Post-Svend,
writers Susan Martinuk and Ezra Levant both weighed in with similar sentiments.

As
a practical matter, I agree that it makes no sense to abolish the existing
form of oath. Atheists already have the option of declaring that
the bible does not bind our consciences and simply affirming that we will
tell the truth. If there are people who believe it is immoral to
lie after uttering an oath to God, but perfectly okay to lie otherwise,
then by all means, letís take advantage of their peculiar sense of morality
and make them swear to God if thatís what it takes to get the truth out
of them.

But
to those who claim that religion is a superior source, or indeed the only
source, of morality, let me tell you my perspective. I consider a
moral code based on religion to be an immature morality, akin to the thought
processes we expect from children. Lying is bad, children think,
because daddy says so, not because I understand the reasons for not doing
it. Or worse yet, lying is bad because daddy will spank me if he
finds out, not because I really believe itís wrong.

Surely
the individual who decides never to lie because he has grasped and internalized
the fundamental principles that make it wrong is more virtuous than the
one who doesnít lie because he thinks God told Moses he shouldnít, or because
he fears God will punish him.

The
religious right chooses God as its source of morality because theyíre looking
for some immutable, uniform standard. They see only divergence and
discord if morality is derived from any other root. They believe
that, having rejected God, atheists have no choice but to pull their moral
code out of thin air, and that every individualís version of morality would
therefore be different and conflicting.

Levant,
for instance, says: "Man needs to submit to absolute truths.
Two plus two equals four, not five."

I
agree, but it still doesnít follow that we must derive our morality from
"Godís word." For one thing, those who claim to have received Godís word
are lamentably lacking in uniformity as to its content. Who got it
right: the Ayatollah Khomeini, the Pope, or Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker?

Besides,
the fact that two plus two equals four is not an absolute truth because
God said so. Itís the truth because that is the nature of reality.

This
is where the religionists drop out. Theyíve never grasped that reality
is the one uniform, immutable bedrock upon which morality can and
should be founded.

In
a moral code based upon reality, lying is bad because it impedes listeners
from grasping accurate facts about reality. Human beings, by their
nature, must use their intellects to survive. If they are given erroneous
information by a liar, they are hampered from dealing with the demands
of nature. Their survival is endangered. And since we all benefit
from the trading thatís made possible from living in society rather than
as isolated hermits, we all have a stake in ensuring that this tool of
human survivalótruthóis made as widely available as possible.

All
other human virtuesórationality, productivity, non-violence, integrityócan
likewise be derived from the nature of reality. Itís that simple,
and that immutable.